Post by jackthegas on Jul 18, 2019 15:54:48 GMT

Now that the dust has settled can we agree deciding the final on boundaries is just odd? Surely something else needs to be done? Another Super Over potentially? It kind of seems pointless having a Super Over if there's already something in place that could see a side win...

Yes - a deeply unsatisfactory tie breaker for all kind of reasons. I can't see the problem with just having another Super Over if you've decided to go down that route. But overall I would favour scrapping the Super Over idea completely and going with whoever came higher in the round robin table. If you have a structure like that where everyone plays everyone that seems a fair enough way of doing it and, in the event of a tie, rewards the team who performed better over the whole tournament. Has the added advantage of everyone knowing exactly where they stand at the start of the game as well.

I think the super over is great concept and I would not be in favour of separating sides based on league placing or group head to head record instead. An additional super over is probably a bit too much as they take forever but I would not be adverse to head to head or league placings separating sides once a super over has been tied.

I do think though that the umpires clearly did a good job of communicating the rules before the super over started. Yes, boundaries is arbitrary but both sides knew what they needed to do.

Ultimately, this is probably a bit academic though as the chances of another tied super over must be really remote!

Post by irishrover on Jul 18, 2019 22:02:35 GMT

Yes - a deeply unsatisfactory tie breaker for all kind of reasons. I can't see the problem with just having another Super Over if you've decided to go down that route. But overall I would favour scrapping the Super Over idea completely and going with whoever came higher in the round robin table. If you have a structure like that where everyone plays everyone that seems a fair enough way of doing it and, in the event of a tie, rewards the team who performed better over the whole tournament. Has the added advantage of everyone knowing exactly where they stand at the start of the game as well.

I think the super over is great concept and I would not be in favour of separating sides based on league placing or group head to head record instead. An additional super over is probably a bit too much as they take forever but I would not be adverse to head to head or league placings separating sides once a super over has been tied.

I do think though that the umpires clearly did a good job of communicating the rules before the super over started. Yes, boundaries is arbitrary but both sides knew what they needed to do.

Ultimately, this is probably a bit academic though as the chances of another tied super over must be really remote!

Yes - apparently based on the rate of ties you get in World Cup games the next one should be in 400 years time so hopefully they'll have figured out a decent system by then!

I get that the Super Over provides fantastic drama but I don't really like it. It's better than penalties. Ultimately I'd probably favour coming back the next day and having another go!

Post by warehamgas on Jul 20, 2019 22:33:44 GMT

istr that they decided a tied match by going into the indoor school and each side bowling an over at the wickets. There was no batsman and at the end of the over each the winning team was the team who had hit the wickets the most times in the six balls. Without checking I think there were one or two such matches in the 60s and 70s with the Gillette Cup. But no one saw it happening! We’ve come a long way since then.

Post by irishrover on Jul 21, 2019 10:38:55 GMT

istr that they decided a tied match by going into the indoor school and each side bowling an over at the wickets. There was no batsman and at the end of the over each the winning team was the team who had hit the wickets the most times in the six balls. Without checking I think there were one or two such matches in the 60s and 70s with the Gillette Cup. But no one saw it happening! We’ve come a long way since then.

Yes we still do that for abandoned cup ties in club cricket. No can ever hit the stumps under that pressure!

Post by jackthegas on Jul 21, 2019 17:23:20 GMT

istr that they decided a tied match by going into the indoor school and each side bowling an over at the wickets. There was no batsman and at the end of the over each the winning team was the team who had hit the wickets the most times in the six balls. Without checking I think there were one or two such matches in the 60s and 70s with the Gillette Cup. But no one saw it happening! We’ve come a long way since then.

Yes we still do that for abandoned cup ties in club cricket. No can ever hit the stumps under that pressure!

In my experience, the batsmen who end up bowling nail it and the bowlers are the ones who struggle!